Primary Navigation

Re: Ancient Readings and Textual Fluidity

... of 150 CE in our critical editions. The text of P66/P75/B is basically NA-27. This is saying too much, I m afraid. NA-27 is notorious for promulgating

Message 1 of 30
, Dec 31, 2005

0 Attachment

"Wieland Willker" wrote:

>> At least for the Gospels it is clear that we have at least the text

of 150 CE in our critical editions. The text of P66/P75/B is basically
NA-27. >>

This is saying too much, I'm afraid. NA-27 is notorious for
promulgating texts, even at the level of a single verse, that aren't
found in any manuscript--let alone a whole book, or the entire Gospels.

Furthermore, the early papyri are deficient in some of the most hotly
debated textual variants in the Gospels, where the text must be
decided without the united witness of P66/P75/B.

Daniel Bukc

Wieland Willker

... Ok, I was exaggerating. We have no full proof for that. But I would maintain that we have basically a text of the Gospel of John that existed around 150 CE

Message 2 of 30
, Jan 1, 2006

0 Attachment

>> At least for the Gospels it is clear that we have at least the
>> text of 150 CE in our critical editions. The text of P66/P75/B
>> is basically NA-27.
>
> This is saying too much, I'm afraid.
> ...
> Furthermore, the early papyri are deficient in some of the most
> hotly debated textual variants in the Gospels, where the text
> must be decided without the united witness of P66/P75/B.

Ok, I was exaggerating. We have no full proof for that.
But I would maintain that we have basically a text of the Gospel of John
that existed around 150 CE in P66/P75. P66 is 2nd CE and P75 is at least
"around 200". Both go back to earlier copies and these go back ultimately to
a common exemplar, which was not very different from P66 and P75, because
both are very close. So I think we are justified to say that we have a text
from around 150 CE. Please note that I did not say that this is also the
original text, it is just one text.
Petersen is wrong when he writes that the pre-180 text "was very different
from the text we now find in our critical editions". The evidence on which
he bases his argumentation is dubious (Justin etc.).
What happened between 80 and 150 CE we do not know. Justin used some kind of
text that was different from the text of the four Gospels we know today, but
this does not mean that our text did not exist, but only that Justin used
some other text. Perhaps he was quoting from a catechetic manual that was in
use in his community.
Also I think Petersen's title "What Text Can Textual Criticism Ultimately
Reach?" is misleading. What he is doing with Justin is IMHO not textual
criticism. If you want to reconstruct the text of the Gospel of John, you
have to make sure first that the texts you are using ARE actually from the
Gospel of John. For Justin it is not clear what he is quoting. I think this
belongs more into source or redaction criticism.

Hello all-- I m new to the group. Are these accurate definitions? TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close as is

Message 3 of 30
, Jan 1, 2006

0 Attachment

Hello all--

I'm new to the group.

Are these accurate definitions?

TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.

Source criticism--textual studies to identify different segments/parts and their respective original periods/authors.

Redaction criticism--studies to determine if text is a product of compilation or combination from multiple sources.

Thanks,

Steve Raine

from around 150 CE. Please note that I did not say that this is also the original text, it is just one text. Petersen is wrong when he writes that the pre-180 text "was very different from the text we now find in our critical editions". The evidence on which he bases his argumentation is dubious (Justin etc.). What happened between 80 and 150 CE we do not know. Justin used some kind of text that was different from the text of the four Gospels we know today, but this does not mean that our text did not exist, but only that Justin used some other text. Perhaps he was quoting from a catechetic manual that was in use in his community. Also I think Petersen's title "What Text Can Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?" is misleading. What he is doing with Justin is IMHO not textual criticism. If you want to reconstruct the text of the Gospel of John, you have to make sure first that the texts you are using ARE actually from the Gospel of John. For Justin it is not clear what he is quoting. I think this belongs more into source or redaction criticism.

... TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording to say

Message 4 of 30
, Jan 2, 2006

0 Attachment

> Are these accurate definitions?
>
>
> TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close
> as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.

TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original
text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording
to say that it aims 'to produce, as closely as is possible/practicable,
the text of the autograph'. To produce the autograph itself would involve
reassembling atoms long-since dispersed.

Regards,

Pete

James M. Leonard

Martin Hengel protests against the direction which some are tacking tc, breaking down disciplinary borders: Here no sufficiently clear distinction is made

Message 5 of 30
, Jan 4, 2006

0 Attachment

Martin Hengel protests against the direction which some are tacking tc, breaking down disciplinary borders: > >

> >

"Here no sufficiently clear distinction is made between textual criticism, which is founded on the uniquely broad manuscript tradition of the text in antiquity, and modern literary criticism, which investigates behind the text that has been handed down and thus seeks to clarify the origin of the works of New Testament literature which came into being before the manuscript tradition which has come down to us, but as a rule works in a much more hypothetical way than textual criticism, which is based solely on textual evidence and above all on manuscripts.

> >

"K. and B. Aland have given a convincing description of the task and methods of textual criticism, i.e., of the most thoroughgoing restoration possible of the original text. The borderline between literary criticism and textual criticism runs right through the decisive point at which the Gospels 'begin their literary existence through copies', i.e. from the time when they were deliberately disseminated. 'It [textual criticism] has no access to what there was before this.'That is the field of literary criticism, with what today are often abundant hypotheses which can no longer be verified; this has become all too much a favourite child of New Testament scholarship" (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 30).

> >

Hengel goes on to specifically mention Eldon J. Epp's watershed article, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' HTR 92, 245-81 and Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, of which he is dismissive.

Jim Leonard

Southwestern Pennsylvania

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Dr P.J. Williams" <p.j.williams@a...> wrote:>> > > Are these accurate definitions?> >> >> > TC--examining and using extant MSS in an attempt to produce, as close> > as is possible/practicable, the original autograph.> > TC is now more broadly defined and does not focus solely on the original> text. For TC that does focus on the original I would modify your wording> to say that it aims 'to produce, as closely as is possible/practicable,> the text of the autograph'. To produce the autograph itself would involve> reassembling atoms long-since dispersed.> > Regards,> > Pete>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.